Afternoon summary

• Sir David Nicholson, the NHS chief executive, has denied taking part in a cover up over the use of "gagging payments" in the NHS. (See 3.16pm)

• Nick Clegg has said that he will accept all the recommendations of a report into the way the Lib Dems handled complaints about Lord Rennard. (See 4.11pm.) After the report was published, he issued this statement.

It makes sobering reading. It shows that stretching over a 20 year period a series of mistakes were made which left a number of women feeling seriously let down and for that there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever.

The report also shows that the individuals who dealt with their complaints had the right motives, but there weren’t the right processes in place to support the women who’d come forward. And as Leader of the Liberal Democrats I take responsibility for that. That’s why we’ve made a number of big changes in the party in recent years and why we must and will do more.

Let me be clear: the Liberal Democrats must be a party where even a hint of sexism is taken seriously; where every allegation of harassment is dealt with properly; and where there can be no fear that power or position can be abused.

Helena Morrissey herself confirmed that we have made significant steps in fixing these problems and she confirmed that there’s no cover up of any error or wrongdoing.

But she’s right to say that there’s more we should do and that’s why we must now speed up the process of change within the party. It’s why I can confirm that we will implement all her recommendations – in full and without any delay. It’s why I’ve asked Tim Farron, the President of the Liberal Democrats, to tell me how and when these changes will occur, and Helena Morrissey herself will come back in a year to check on the progress that we’ve made.

• There was no deliberate cover-up to protect Rennard, Morrissey finds.

I have deliberated over whether there was a conscious cover-up, which would suggest a more corrosive culture. One of the women involved has specifically alleged a blatant cover-up. I understand her frustration, anger and suspicion but I did not find evidence to support this regarding these events.

Certainly, it can be argued that more questions should have been asked and I had a sense that everyone wanted the issue to ‘go away’; while that is not right, it is a natural human reaction to a difficult problem. These difficulties were compounded by what may have been an erroneous judgement around what the women actually wanted to happen at the time and the understanding, again perhaps erroneous, that they wanted to remain anonymous.

• Paul Burstow, chief whip at the time that complaints were made about Rennard, should have raised them with the party president, Morrissey says. She accepts that Burstow did not do this because he thought the complainants wanted to remain anonymous. But she says that, given the seriousness of the allegations, he should have acted proactively. She also says that, although Jo Swinson and Danny Alexander acted "in good faith" when they took up complaints about Rennard informally, it would have been better to have had a formal investigation.

• Morrissey suggests the Lib Dems are prone to feuding.

As in a family, strong relationships develop between individuals, but sometimes these become dysfunctional. When they go wrong there are far fewer routes for positive resolution than in the corporate world where ultimately people can leave and take employment elsewhere. It is relatively easy to move on. Liberal Democrats do not usually have the option of joining another Party. This means that when career disappointments occur or people fall out, grudges can develop. I heard from a number of people who felt they had been ‘blocked’ by others; while I can sympathise with their disheartening experiences, I also see that it is hard for them to be objective about the people involved. A vicious cycle has occasionally developed, with the grudge becoming overwhelming and destructive in some cases. Two episodes shared with me (unrelated to the events catalysing this review) were described as ‘feuds’

• All party codes of conduct should include a clause saying people must treat others with respect and that they must not "bully, harass or intimidate" anyone else in the party, Morrissey recommends.

• A pastoral care office should be set up in the party, Morrissey recommends. This should include a manned phone line for anyone wanting to make a complaint.

Stewart Jackson asks for a note on the legal advice given by the Treasury to the Department of Health.

Q: Six trusts have refused to give information about judicial mediation payments. What sanctions can you apply?

Nicholson says it depends whether they are NHS trusts or foundation trusts.

It is "extraordinary" for trusts not to release this information, he says.

Jackson says it is "unsatisfactory in the extreme" that the committee has only been able to obtain this information through a Freedom of Information Act request.

An official giving evidence with Nicholson says trusts may have found it impossible to find this information.

Margaret Hodge says she would also like a clear explanation as to why the Department of Health did not respond to its earlier request.

They have now dropped the "gagging payments" questions and are on to different issues.

On "gagging payments", we didn't really learn anything new. Nicholson strongly denied taking part in a "cover up", but his comments did not seem to satisfy MPs on the committee who were angry that he ignored their request for information eventually uncovered by an FoI request.

MPs question Sir David Nicholson about "gagging clauses"

At the public accounts committee MPs have not turned to "gagging payments". (See 9.41am.)

Sir David Nicholson says he has been to the PAC more than 30 times. That may be a record, he says. He takes his responsibilities to parliament seriously. He prepares as well as he can, and he is at all times "completely honest". If he makes mistake, he puts them right as quickly as possible.

He says he can absolutely refute the suggestion that he has been involved in any cover up relating to gagging clauses.

• Cameron has claimed that Labour's commitment to fiscal discipline is meaningless. During PMQs,he repeatedly raised the cap on welfare spending proposed by Ed Miliband in a speech last week. He said this:

What people want to know in this country is we are going to cap welfare and get on top of welfare bills but protect pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and have saved for their retirement. I've done a little bit of due diligence on the Labour party's policy because last week, of course, they announced they wanted a welfare cap and I thought, 'that's interesting, that's progress'. But when you look at it, would they cap the welfare bill for those in work? No they wouldn't. Would they cap housing benefit, no they wouldn't. The one thing they want to cap, apparently, is pensions. There we have it: protect welfare, punish hard workers and target pensioners. More of the same something-for-nothing culture that got this country into the mess in the first place.

And he also said this about the bedroom tax.

We ended the spare room subsidy because we don't think it's fair to give a subsidy to people in council houses that don't have it in private rented accommodation. But I have to say there is now a question for the Labour party. Now, if they are going to have this welfare cap, can they now tell us are they going to reverse this change. Are you? Are you? They are shaking their heads. Is that a no?" So that's right, after all the talk of the last few weeks the iron discipline we were going to hear about, the welfare cap they were telling us about: test one, failure.

He also said that Ed Balls' comment about Labour not spending too much when it was in office would seriously damage Labour's reputation

They give tax avoidance advice to their donors, that is what they've been doing, £700,000 of tax avoided because of what Labour advised their donor to do ... He asked me to calm down, well I can't calm down, because this is money that ought to be going into the health service.

Cameron said Miliband had been quoted as saying tax avoidance was a "terrible thing" and that if everyone took the same approach to tax as some big multinationals like Google, there would not be a health service. Yet Labour was taking money from Mills. This was "totally shameful", Cameron said.

• Miliband has challenged Cameron to explain why living standards are not improving. He asked about this at PMQs, but Cameron sidestepped the question. Miliband responded:

It is your fourth year as prime minister. And your excuse for falling living standards? 'Don't blame me, I'm only the prime minister!'. It's simply not good enough.

Miliband said that, allowing for inflation, wages had fallen by £1,300 a year on average since Cameron came to power.

• Cameron has said that the government's new Help to Buy scheme will not subsidise people buying second homes. When he was asked about Help to Buy at PMQs last week, he was unable to give an assurance that foreigners would not benefit from the scheme. Today's Labour's Seema Malhotra asked:

Last week you couldn't confirm that taxpayers would not subsidise foreign buyers of property in the UK. Perhaps you could instead clarify whether your Help-to-Buy scheme will see taxpayers help fund purchases of second homes and holiday cottages?

In his reply Cameron said the scheme would not help people buying second homes. And he also suggested that foreigners would find it hard to use the scheme.

First of all, this scheme is for people's only home. It will have a mechanism in place to make sure that is the case. The second thing, which is important, is in order to take part in this scheme you have to have a credit record and you have to have a credit record in this country so no, it won't do what you say it would."

The Children's Heart Federation, a charity, has put out a statement saying Hunt should press ahead with the safe and sustainable proposals. This is from Anne Keatley-Clarke, the CHF chief executive.

For the past 12 years, ever since the Bristol baby tragedy, we’ve been campaigning to ensure that another crisis in the care of vulnerable children can never be allowed to happen again.

As this review was clinician-led and the recommendations were agreed by their professional bodies and many parent groups, it has been really disappointing to see the implementation of the necessary improvements delayed. We want all heart-children, wherever they live in England to have access to an excellent service.

NHS England is a new body tasked to modernise the health service to secure the best possible health outcomes. We ask them to remember that this is a national service so they should take account of, but not to give undue weight to local opinion in order to provide an equitable and excellent service for every heart child wherever they live in England.

We urge NHS England to be brave and implement the standards proposed in the safe and sustainable programme to put an end to the preventable risk to children’s lives who undergo heart surgery.

Jacqueline Cornish, national clinical director for children and young people for NHS Englan, says NHS England wants to announce new reconfiguration plans in the autumn, with a view to implementing them within 12 months.

Hunt's statement on children's heart surgery units - Key extracts

Here are extracts from Jeremy Hunt's statement

On the background to the safe and sustainable review

On average, around 3,700 heart procedures are carried out each year on children who have been diagnosed with congenital heart conditions. The mortality rates at Bristol Royal Infirmary identified as far back as 1989 indicated that we are not as successful as we should be in such operations.

The Safe & Sustainable review began in 2008, and set out to make sure children’s heart services are the best they can be for all children across the country.

Whatever the controversy about the location of such services, we all have a responsibility to ensure the best possible outcomes for children and their families, who must always come first in any decision about service provision.

Sir Ian Kennedy, in his Bristol Inquiry report in 2001, recommended the concentration of medical and nursing expertise in a smaller number of centres. Subsequent working groups and reports have endorsed that recommendation, including the Royal College of Surgeons in 2007.

The public consultation on the Safe & Sustainable review received over 75,000 responses. This was the largest review of its kind, conducted independently of government by the NHS.

On the safe and sustainable findings

In July 2012, the then Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts (JCPCT), on behalf of local NHS commissioners, decided children’s heart surgery networks should be formally structured around Specialist Surgical Centres in Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle and Southampton as well as Great Ormond Street and the Evelina Children’s Hospital in London. They recommended that services should no longer be provided in Leicester, Leeds, Oxford and the Royal Brompton and Harefield in London.

On Hunt's decision to set up an independent reconfiguration panel (IRP) to review the safe and sustainable findings

Following the JCPCT’s announcement, three local health overview and scrutiny committees formally referred the JCPCT’s decision for me to review and I wrote to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) asking them to undertake a full review of the proposals.

On 30 April 2013, I received the report. I would like to thank the IRP for producing such a comprehensive review of such a challenging topic.

On the IRP findings

It strongly agrees with the case for change, specifically that congenital cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology should only be provided by specialist teams large enough to sustain a comprehensive range of interventions, round-the-clock care, specialist training and research. I agree with their analysis.

However, the report also concludes that the outcome of the Safe & Sustainable review was based on a flawed analysis of the impact of incomplete proposals, and leaves too many questions about sustainability and implementation.

This is clearly a serious criticism of the Safe & Sustainable process. I therefore accept their recommendation that the proposals cannot go ahead in their current form and am suspending the review today. NHS England will also seek to withdraw its appeal against the judicial review successfully achieved by Save Our Surgery in Leeds.

Nonetheless, the IRP is clear the clinical case for change remains, and their report is very helpful in setting out the way forward in terms of broadening the scope of the discussion, and looking in detail at the affordability and sustainability of the proposals.

The IRP says – and I agree – that this is not a mandate for the status quo or for going back over all the ground already covered during the last five years.

The case for change commands widespread support and understanding, and we must continue to seek every opportunity to improve services for children.

On what happens next

NHS England now must move forward on the basis of these clear recommendations and the Leeds court judgement.

I have therefore today written to NHS England and local overview and scrutiny committees that originally referred the JCPCT’s decision to me, to explain that the IRP’s report shows that the proposals of the Safe & Sustainable review clearly cannot go ahead in their current form.

It is right to give all parties some time to reflect on the best way forward now the IRP report is in the public domain so I have asked NHS England to report back to me by the end of July on how they intend to proceed.

Hunt says the safe and sustainable process has cost around £6m. MPs will rightly ask whether that has been spent well, given the flaws that have been identified. But it is right to spend money on taking these decisions properly, he says.

Hilary Benn, the Labour MP for Leeds Central, pays tribute to the campaigners in Leeds who opposed the closure of the children's heart unit in the city. Next time, will Hunt ensure the process is open?

Hunt says that is right. The concerns of the campaigners were valid. They said the en

Stephen Dorrell, the Conservative chair of the Commons health committee, says the "safe and sustainable" programme could not go ahead because it had lost the confidence of patients and clinicians.

Hunt says he agrees. When there is a controversial proposal, there is always likely to be opposition. But people in Leeds did not feel this process was fair. They felt the outcome of the consultation was predetermined.

He says he supported the original case for concentrating children's heart surgery in specialist units. But the original closure programme was "skewed", he says. Some parts of the country were going to lose out.

He asks Hunt to set out a more precise timetable for when fresh plans will be outlined.

He asks what guarantees there are that NHS England will operate independently of vested interests tied to the existing 10 sites.

He also warns against "unnecessary delay".

When Hunt faces up to difficult decisions, he will have Labour's support.

Jeremy Hunt is expected to make a statement to the Commons on the results of a review into the decision to reorganise children's cardiac services across England into fewer, more specialised units.

This review was ordered by Hunt following protests against plans to shut the centre at Leeds General Infirmary (LGI) as well as ones at Glenfield hospital in Leicester and the Royal Brompton in west London ...

The original decision to close the three units was part of a general review of services across England based on the premise that there was a need to concentrate expertise in more specialist centres. The plan was to reduce the current 10 units to seven.

The campaign in Leeds focused on how a huge region would be left without any local services, saying families would have to make long trips to either Newcastle upon Tyne or Liverpool with extremely sick children.

Cameron challenges Labour to return the tax avoided by the Labour donor, John Mills. This is money that should be going to the NHS. He quotes from Miliband in the Guardian ("so it must be true", Cameron says) saying tax avoidance takes money away from vital services.

Cameron says it is unfair that people in social housing get a spare room subsidy. This is a challenge for Labour. Will they keep the bedroom tax? He claims that someone is saying no. So, there we have it, he says. Labour announced a welfare cap. But it failed its first test.

Cameron says Jeremy Hunt will be making an announcement about children's heart surgery soon. People have to accept that really technical work, like children's heart surgery, cannot be carried out everywhere. As the parent of a seriously ill child, he wanted his child to receive the best treatment available.

Labour's Jim Dowd asks if he accepts that the creative industries need the protection of intellectual property rights. He says that a culture minister in the Lords recently said Google had better access to the prime minister than he did.

Cameron says five times as many jobs have been created in the private sector as were lost in the public sector.

He turns to Ed Balls and quotes what he said last week about the last Labour government not spending too much. It is one of the most important quotes in politics in the last 10 years. It will be hung around his neck, he says.

PMQs Snap Verdict: Miliband did a better job at needling Cameron than Cameron did needling him, but the exchange on Syria was probably more interesting than the party political banter. Cameron seems to be getting more cautious about arming the rebels, and he was more explicit than last week about giving MPs a vote on any decision to arm the Syrian opposition.

The pilot doesn't know how to land it. We can either do something about it before the crash, or sit back, watch the in-flight movies and wait for the inevitable.

Miliband says he could not have put it better himself. Day in, day out, people see prices rising, wages falling, while Cameron says the economy is better off.

Cameron says that Miliband is talking down the economy. He showed not one word of respect for the good news. David Blunkett said about Miliband's leadership: "We are literally going nowhere". Miliband has not even got on the airplane.

Miliband gets up again. The falling unemployment figures are welcome. But why are living standards continuing to fall?

Cameron says unemployment is down and the claimant count is down. Over the last year, while 100,000 jobs have gone in the public sector, five times as many jobs have been created in the private sector. There has been some improvement in wages. But wages have been under pressure since Labour's boom and bust.

Miliband says Cameron is in his fourth year as prime minister, yet his excuse is: "Don't blame me, I'm only prime minister.". Can Cameron confirm wages have fallen on average?

Cameron says the IFS figures come form 2008, when Miliband was in government. Of course living standards are under pressure. That is why the government is freezing council tax.

Cameron says the government will cap welfare, but protect pensions. Last week Labour said they wanted a welfare cap. He thought that was progress. But would they cap the bill for those in work - no. Would they cap housing benefit - no. Instead they would cap pensions.

Labour's Jim McGovern asks if Cameron watched the Panorama programme on blacklisting. It's worse than McCarthyism, he says. Will Cameron support an urgent inquiry. McGovern says he refers to it not as McCarthyism, but McAlpinism.

Cameron says he did not see the programme. But the government has taken action against blacklisting, he says.

Milband says he supports a peace conference. But the government is focusing on the arms embargo. He says he asked about supplying lethal equipment, not non-lethal equipment. What are the safeguards? And can Cameron confirm that, if the government does decide to supply arms, there will be a vote in the Commons on a substantive motion, and a recall of parliament if necessary.

Cameron says the Russians have been arming the Syrian government for decades. The government has not decided to supply the opposition with arms. On the Commons voting, Cameron says he has always believed in the Commons having a say. And that would be right in the future, he says.

It’s encouraging to see businesses feel able to pay people a little more through one-off bonuses, as economic conditions appear to have brightened. The use of bonuses rather than base pay awards suggests firms are still being cautious.

The labour market always lags a few months behind the economy, so it’s not surprising that overall, the picture on unemployment remains fairly flat.

However, we expect to see improving economic conditions making a more positive impact on job creation later this year and it’s encouraging that once again the private sector more than offset the number of positions lost in the public sector during the first quarter.

From Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union

The figures clearly show there is a shortage of jobs in the UK to give everyone a living.

From Ian Brinkley, director of The Work Foundation

The labour market figures released this morning give a mixed picture. Overall, employment is still holding up, especially in the private sector. But long term unemployment is still rising. Nearly 900,000 people have been out of work for more than a year, and nearly 460,000 out of work for more than two years.

From Graeme Leach, chief economist at the Institute of Directors

The labour market figures don’t really tell us a lot. The fall in unemployment on both the claimant count and ILO measures is very small, as is the gain in employment from private sector jobs growth exceeding the decline in the public sector. We remain cautiously optimistic about the economic outlook in 2013 and still believe GDP growth could be around 1.5% this year.

Perhaps the clearest sign comes from the continued pressure on household incomes, with inflation running well ahead of earnings growth, which is just 1.3% (excluding bonuses). The real income squeeze remains a dragging anchor on GDP growth.

From Jim Hillage, director of research at the Institute for Employment Studies

Today’s data from the Office of National Statistics show that the labour market continues to stagnate, with a small increase in the number of people in employment and a small fall in unemployment. However, beneath the doldrums, the long-term currents underpinning the labour market are moving and this month sees a further rise in the number of older people in employment that takes the total to over one million for the first time.

Unemployment continues to be stuck at around 2.5 million, eight per cent of the labour force. Despite recent signs that the economy is starting to improve, unemployment show no signs of falling significantly in the near future. There is still a lot of slack in the labour market and it is clear that it will be a long time until the jobless total returns to pre-recession levels.

From John Allan, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses

It is pleasing to see the unemployment figures edging in the right direction again. The initial view from the FSB's small business index, due to be published next week, paints a similar picture with more small firms expecting to take on staff in the coming three months. However the growth in hiring is still weaker than we would hope.

From Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary

The rise in employment together with fewer people claiming jobseekers allowance in Scotland is very welcome, not least for those who are moving from unemployment into jobs. This shows the decisions we are taking to tackle the deficit and build a stronger and fairer economy are working.

From a Welsh government spokesman

Today's statistics again show that over the year Wales has outperformed the UK average in terms of employment, unemployment and economic inactivity. However the latest figures show that the economic situation in Wales remains challenging due to the weak global economy and spending cuts imposed by the UK government.

The list of cuts Mr Balls proffered up were almost hilariously inadequate. In 2015, when Labour hopes to take office, it would inherit a tax base of 38 per cent of national income and a spending bill representing 43 per cent. This is a vast gap. You could take out all defence spending and all of the police and still not be half way there. Or you try closing all schools and still fall short. Britain wants a US level of taxation with European levels of spending and this is not sustainable ...

If, therefore, the Labour leadership is serious in any way about agreeing to George Osborne’s spending path it has committed itself to a fundamental reshaping of the State. That is what the figures mean. It is what they will require. Abandoning the argument against the spending plans means abandoning much of the Left’s argument against the Centre Right’s view of the size and shape of government.

Consider for a moment what might have to be done (and of course the Tories would have to face this too). First, the Government will have to consider what is inside the State that might have to be taken out. In the same way that the Thatcher Government privatised water, perhaps Mr Miliband might need to privatise the roads or bin collection, as happened in Ireland. Some states in Australia have an insurance levy to pay for fire services, as does Finland. And do councils need to be in the business of providing leisure services?

If Labour’s new policy is genuine, it also requires looking at the scope of what the Government does. Perhaps it could start welfare provision at 21, reduce its involvement in higher education or raise the state pension age to 70.

Britain is to push the European Union to relax restrictions on the licensing of genetically modified crops for human consumption amid growing scientific evidence that they are safe, and surveys showing they are supported by farmers. The Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is expected to use a speech next week to outline the start of a new government approach to GM to ensure Britain “is not left behind” in agricultural science.

The move comes as 61 per cent of UK farmers now say they would like to grow GM crops after a disastrous 12-month cycle of poor weather that is expected significantly to reduce harvest yields. Senior government officials said that ministers are increasingly concerned that the potential moral and ethical benefits of GM are being ignored by costly and bureaucratic licensing regulations.

It's a credit to the growth of British businesses up and down the country that we now have a record number of people employed in the private sector.

Our priority is getting people back into work and today's figures show we have more people in work than ever before, more women in work than ever before, and more hours worked in the economy than ever before.

With the number of people in work increasing, and unemployment down, these are welcome figures. The fact that youth unemployment is also down is a positive sign.

But we are not complacent - through schemes like the Work Programme and the Youth Contract we will continue to help people find the jobs they need so they can realise their aspiration of looking after themselves and their families and help the country compete in the global race.

Mark Hoban. Photograph: David Levene

From Frances O'Grady, the TUC general secretary

Today's figures show that any economic green shoots are confined to the stock market and the pay of top bosses.

While there is a record number of people in work - due to a rising population and people working past state pension age - the chances of actually being in work has fallen in the last three months.

Decent pay rises seem confined to top bosses, whose pay is now rising 10 times as fast as ordinary workers. We need far stronger economic growth to boost our jobs market and for top bosses to stop hogging limited business gains for themselves.

Frances O'Grady

From Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary

The tiniest glimmer of light is to be welcomed but today's figures confirm the awful truth that there's been practically zero progress tackling unemployment since last summer. Pay-packets have continued to take an absolute hammering while the government is cutting tax credits. Long term unemployment is becoming more deep set and employers are reporting skills shortages and more part-time workers are saying they're desperate for a full time job.

The bottom line is unemployment is now higher than it was at the last election, and today unemployment rose again in two-thirds of England. Long term unemployment is now a massive 100,000 higher than back in 2010, the number of women out of work has risen yet again and last month saw a fall in the number of people coming off benefits.

We simply can't go on like this. It's now as plain as day that we need fundamental, long term reform of our social security system, starting with Labour's compulsory jobs guarantee for young people and the long term unemployed.

From Dave Prentis, the Unison general secretary

Whilst any drop in unemployment is welcome, the overall picture is still gloomy. There are far too many people out of work, women and long-term unemployed are particularly badly affected, and public sector jobs are being slashed. Local government has been one of the areas hardest hit by the Government's austerity agenda.

While all these job losses are personal tragedies, they also mean that people who rely on services will find them getting scarcer and scarcer. The impact on local economies is dire. None of this bodes well for the economy.

The Times (paywall) says that David Cameron, Andrew Lansley, leader of the Commons, and several select committee chairs (Margaret Hodge, Bernard Jenkin, Keith Vaz and David Davies) support John Bercow's call for select committee chairs to be banned from having outside interests relevant to their select committee role. (See 10.04am.)

But some select committee chairs are not happy about the idea, the Times reports.

However, Richard Ottaway, a Tory MP who heads the Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that an outright ban on outside interests “would diminish debate” and John Whittingdale, the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said that MPs having outside interests “strengthens Parliament”.

“I have a small non-executive directorship . . . in a music company which happens to be run by somebody who is a very old friend of mine,” Mr Whitttingdale said.

“I find it actually quite helpful to get experience from talking to them about how they’re operating in the current music environment. As long as everything is fully declared and open . . . I think it strengthens Parliament.

John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, wants to stop select committee chairs having outside interests relevant to their select committee role. He has written to the chair of the Commons standards committee, Kevin Barron, asking his committee to investigate this and consider the case for a new rule. His letter was clearly prompted by the case of Tim Yeo. Here's the full text.

Dear Kevin

As we both know, a member has recently referred himself to the parliamentary commissioner for standards for investigation of alleged breaches of parliamentary rules in respect of lobbying. Naturally the commissioner will conduct her own investigation into the particular circumstances and none of us would seek to interfere with, or pre-judge, that investigation.

However, last November, I mentioned to the government chief whip and the parliamentary commissioner for standards, my concern, on behalf of the House, about what many might regard as an inherent incompatibility between chairing a select committee and having commercial interests, even though fully transparently registered, in the sector covered by that committee.

At present, chairs of select committees are required simply to register such interests, but they are not prevented from having them. As I believe that there is a reputational issue for the House involved, I should be most grateful if your committee would consider this specific and important matter, with a view to making a recommendation to the House. Colleagues would then have the opportunity to decide whether to maintain the status quo, or to introduce a new rule on the subject.

The Conservatives have launched a website, letbritaindecide.com, to gather public support for James Wharton's private member's bill legislating for an in/out referendum on EU membership. All Tory MPs have been told to vote for the bill when it has its second reading next month.

Here's the top of the Press Association story about the unemployment figures.

The number of over-65s in a job has reached a record one million, new figures revealed today. Unemployment has fallen by 5,000 to 2.5 million and the numbers claiming jobseeker's allowance shrank by 8,600 last month to 1.5 million. A record 29.7 million people are in work after a rise of 24,000 in recent months. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures also showed that just over a million people over the age of 65 are in work, the highest since records began in 1971. Almost one in 10 people in the age group are working - 615,000 men and 388,000 women. Other data disclosed that public sector employment has fallen by 22,000 to just under 5.7 million. the lowest figure since 2001. Local government employment is 26,000 lower than the end of last year at fewer than 2.5 million. Employment in private firms has increased by 46,000 to 24 million. The UK's employment rate is now 71.5%, while 7.8% of the population is jobless. The so-called claimant count has fallen for seven months in a row and has dipped to its lowest total since May 2011. The fall in unemployment in the quarter to April was entirely due to men finding work, while the number of women out of a job rose by 7,000 to 1.09 million. Long-term unemployment has also increased, with those looking for work for longer than a year up by 11,000 to almost 900,000. Youth unemployment - counting those aged between 16 and 24 - has fallen by 43,000 to 950,000. Total pay increased by 1.3% in the year to April, compared to the previous month's revised figure of 0.6%. Average total pay, including bonuses, is now £484 a week, falling to £447 without bonuses.

Stephen Barclay, a Conservative MP who sits on the public accounts committee and who obtained the new figures using the Freedom of Information Act, told Sky News this morning that Nicholson should resign now.

We need to change the culture in the NHS, and we need a culture where people feel confident about speaking out about problems and where whistleblowers are not suspended and then paid off with payments such as this which are a clear conflict of interest. And I don’t think it helps to change that culture within the NHS if Sir David continues for another year. I think if he goes earlier, then that will help in terms of putting new leadership in place.

Stewart Jackson, another Conservative who sits on the PAC, has been tweeting about today's hearing.

Our #PAC hearing on the NHS with Sir David Nicholson may be lively today

More significantly, the Lib Dem health minister Norman Lamb refused to back Nicholson when he appeared on ITV's Daybreak this morning. Lamb was asked about Nicholson's future and he could have defended Nicholson. (NHS England has put out a statement saying Nicholson did not deliberately mislead MPs in March because at that point he did not know about the 50 secret gagging orders. It's at the end of the Telegraph story.) But instead Lamb said that he was still waiting to hear what Nicholson said.

[Nicholson's] got to be answerable for what he said, first of all. He said at the moment he didn’t know. Now, he’s making an appearance today before the public accounts committee, I want to wait to hear what he says in response to questions about this story, but people have to be answerable for their actions – that’s absolutely clear. And from my point of view, there must be a culture of openness so that anybody who knows about safety problems in hospitals feels able to speak out. We should encourage staff to speak out and not keep them quiet.

Here's some more on the Lib Dem report on the way the party handles sexual complaints that is being published this afternoon. It's from the Press Association.

A review of the Liberal Democrats' internal culture and handling of complaints, launched in the wake of allegations against the party's former chief executive Lord Rennard, will be published today. The independent inquiry by prominent City businesswoman Helena Morrissey examined attitudes towards women in the party; the relationship between staff, elected officials and volunteers; training; and how to lead a wider change in Westminster. Morrissey, chief executive of Newton Investment Management, is the founder of the Thirty Per Cent Club which campaigns to increase the proportion of women in company boardrooms. When appointed to lead the review she said those at the top of politics should "lead by example" in tackling the old boys' networks which exclude women from many parts of society. "It leads to an atmosphere where women don't feel valued or listened to," she said. The inquiry will "help guide a culture shift and develop a much more equal and trusting set of standards", Morrissey said. The Morrissey review is separate from a disciplinary inquiry into allegations by a number of women of sexual harassment against Lord Rennard, which the Lib Dem peer strenuously denies. Scotland Yard is investigating the allegations against the peer.

It’s PMQs today. Often the exchanges between David Cameron and Ed Miliband are routine, but this is the first PMQs since Miliband’s “we’ll cap welfare” speech and it will be interesting to see whether Cameron has crafted a new line of attack.

There’s plenty of other stuff around too. Here’s the full agenda for the day.

9.30am: Unemployment figures are released.

10am: Lord Heseltine, the Conservative former deputy prime minister, gives a speech on policies for growth.

10.45am: Tessa Jowell, the Labour former culture secretary, and Ken Livingstone, the Labour former London mayor, give evidence to a Lords committee on the legacy of the Olympics.

4pm: The Liberal Democrats publish a report into the way the party has handled complaints about sexual misconduct. The review was ordered after allegations were made about Lord Rennard, the party’s former chief executive.

As usual, I’ll also be covering all the breaking political news as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary after PMQs, and another in the afternoon.